What would a Hughes presidency be like?

I am presently writing a TL which involves Charles.E.Hughes narrowly winning the 1916 election rather than narrowly loosing as IOTL (switching a few thousand Californian votes) but it got me thinking that I actually have no idea a 1916 Republican presidency would be like. Obviously with the emphasis on "preparedness" rather than isolationism American intervention is likely to have taken place somewhat earlier but I am curious what the domestic legislation would have been like. Presumably worse labour relations?
 
The US will get into the War on schedule; unrestricted German submarine warfare made that inevitable. I think Hughes is more likely to get the US into some sort of League than Wilson did, because he will not be so stubborn in dealing with senators who supported the idea but wanted some voice in it.

One thing I wonder about is whether Hughes might be less repressive against "Reds" and other opponents of the war--at least once the war ended. One thing that indicates he might be: his opposition to the expulsion of the Socialists from the New York state legislature in 1920. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1920/01/10/page/1/article/hughes-slaps-act-against-5-socialists

He will almost certainly lose in 1920. Dissatisfaction with the war and its results--even by people who supported it in 1917--would probably doom any administration in 1920. *Any* peace treaty, even one less defective than Versailles, is going to leave millions of Americans dissatisfied, especially from ethnic groups. ("It doesn't assure a free Ireland!" "It's too hard on Germany!" "No, it doesn't give enough to Poland!" "It doesn't give enough to Italy!" "No, it gives Italy too much at the expense of the South Slavs!" Etc.) The economic conditions of 1920 and the unpopularity of "profiteers" will also hurt Hughes, especially since the GOP was associated with business. No, 1916, like 1928, was one of those elections a party is better off losing.

(He might even be defeated in a rematch by Wilson in 1920--without the strains of the White House, Wilson might never get that stroke.)
 
The US will get into the War on schedule; unrestricted German submarine warfare made that inevitable. I think Hughes is more likely to get the US into some sort of League than Wilson did, because he will not be so stubborn in dealing with senators who supported the idea but wanted some voice in it.

One thing I wonder about is whether Hughes might be less repressive against "Reds" and other opponents of the war--at least once the war ended. One thing that indicates he might be: his opposition to the expulsion of the Socialists from the New York state legislature in 1920. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1920/01/10/page/1/article/hughes-slaps-act-against-5-socialists

He will almost certainly lose in 1920. Dissatisfaction with the war and its results--even by people who supported it in 1917--would probably doom any administration in 1920. *Any* peace treaty, even one less defective than Versailles, is going to leave millions of Americans dissatisfied, especially from ethnic groups. ("It doesn't assure a free Ireland!" "It's too hard on Germany!" "No, it doesn't give enough to Poland!" "It doesn't give enough to Italy!" "No, it gives Italy too much at the expense of the South Slavs!" Etc.) The economic conditions of 1920 and the unpopularity of "profiteers" will also hurt Hughes, especially since the GOP was associated with business. No, 1916, like 1928, was one of those elections a party is better off losing.

(He might even be defeated in a rematch by Wilson in 1920--without the strains of the White House, Wilson might never get that stroke.)

What would the Democratic run on? Would they attack Hughes for his closeness to big business and run on a very liberal platform?
 
I know that Wikipedia suggests that towards the end of the presidential campaign he Progressives were becoming disenchanted with Hughes due to his opposition to the Adamson Act and generally moving away from their interests. If his presidency was in a similar pro-business vein is it likely that the Progressives would re-emerge as a "major" party in the aftermath of the war?
 
I know that Wikipedia suggests that towards the end of the presidential campaign he Progressives were becoming disenchanted with Hughes due to his opposition to the Adamson Act and generally moving away from their interests. If his presidency was in a similar pro-business vein is it likely that the Progressives would re-emerge as a "major" party in the aftermath of the war?

I doubt it because without TR the Progressives as a party don't amount to much. Those who joined the movement in 1912 out of social-justice principles (rather than to follow a hero) will probably vote Democratic in 1920 if Hughes turns out to be a conservative.
 
Came in expecting a Howard Hughes Presidency TL, left disappointed.
201206081649CXT.gif
 
Top